SHIVLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel Shri Thakur vehemently urged that as the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., manifestly, his purported implication in the case is absolutely unjustified. I am least persuaded by the said argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As admittedly, the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and still, he apprehends implication in the case, manifestly, the Investigating Officer before doing so, would be required to collect plausible evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime.

(3.) In this background, for appreciating the petitioner's claim of false implication, the Court would have to delve and fish into case diary to assess and adjudicate upon the sufficiency of the material collected by the Investigating Officer which, certainly is not warranted while entertaining a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.